Pages

Recent Posts

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Ending The "Neo-Fisherian" Debate

One of the stranger spectacles of mainstream macro is the inability to agree on what should be obvious -- will inflation rise or fall if the central bank raises the (nominal) interest rate? If it were possible to cleanly find the solutions for Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models, this could easily be determined by applying a level shift to a sensible central bank reaction function (such as a Taylor Rule).

(As many of my readers are post-Keynesian, I will note that this article follows the convention of mainstream economics, and ignore the insights of post-Keynesian analysis. As a result, I am just writing here about the analysis of DSGE models, and not how economies in the real world might operate.)

Introduction

The debate revolves around the effect of interest rates on inflation. His summary:

A number of authors (Schmit-Grohe and Uribe; Cochrane) and bloggers (Cochrane and
Williamson) have argued that, if a central bank pegs the nominal interest rate forever, the
equilibrium inflation rate is increasing in the level of the peg.

How To End The Debate

I will admit that I have given up at looking at DSGE macro. However, it appears to me that the issue with this debate as the examples used rely on bizarre central bank behaviour -- keeping the rate of interest fixed at some level forever. (As an aside, I would argue that such a policy would not be problematic in the real world, but it is within a DSGE model that assumes that interest rates drive everything.)

Even if those examples are analysed correctly, the model dynamics are dubious looking (as seen in the Kocherlakota paper). Furthermore, we cannot relate the framework to the real world -- we know that central banks do not commit to fixed interest rates forever.

where r(t) is the policy rate, and T(x(t)) is the Taylor Rule output (which is a function of the model state.) We solve for the model solution (at least a deterministic central solution). We label this the "baseline" solution.

We then create a new model, where the policy rate is given by:

r(t) = R(x(t)) = T(x(t)) + k,

where k <> 0 is some constant. (Alternatively, replace k with k(t), with k(t) to be non-zero for some finite period, then zero thereafter.) We set k = 1% to see the effect of "raising interest rates" by 1%.

There are essentially four possible outcomes of this analysis (assuming k = 1%).

The model converges to a solution that features a greater rate of inflation than the baseline solution ("neo-Fisherian").

The model converges to a solution that features a lesser rate of inflation than the baseline solution ("standard").

The model has a solution that has a difficult to characterise relationship to the baseline solution (for example, oscillating around the baseline trajectory). ("?")

We can show that the model solution does not exist.

We cannot solve the model.

Unlike the thought experiments I have seen, this test corresponds about as closely as possible to the question of "What happens if the central bank raises the interest rate?" When we discuss "raising the interest rate," it is in reference to where the policy rate is now, which is presumably at a "sensible" level. The Taylor Rule stands in for that "sensible" level. We then raise the interest rate higher than the "sensible" level, and keep the rate higher than "sensible" levels in the future (for possibly just a finite interval of time).

Note that future "sensible" levels will adapt to the current condition of the model economy (since the state x(t) will be different). It could be that even with a positive k, the model output will eventually have a lower nominal interest rate than in the baseline scenario -- as the future output gap might be more negative than in the baseline scenario.

If we can determine that the outcome is cases (1)-(3), the debate is largely over (although (3) would raise new questions).

Possibility (4) seems far-fetched (no solution). If we set k to be arbitrarily small but greater than zero, why would there be no solution? That would raise a lot of questions about the DSGE framework -- the models are completely unstable in the face of model uncertainty.

Possibility (5) leaves us where we are now -- we have no idea what the answer is. Furthermore, if DSGE modellers cannot find a solution, it raises questions whether they have any idea what the solutions for any DSGE model configuration.

(Of course, things may be more complicated than indicated above. We are running this test for a single model structure, and we might only be able to characterise the solution numerically for a single parameter set. Different model structures and/or parameters might have different results. In which case, the debate turns to which model best approximates reality. That is a much more productive discussion than what I have seen of the "Neo-Fisherean" debate.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Posts may be moderated, and there may be a considerable delay before they appear.

Although I welcome people who disagree with me, please be civil.

Please note that my spam comment filter appears to dislike long "anonymous" posts. I get no warning about this, and only go through my "spambox" infrequently. The best bet it to keep comments short, and if you think the spam filter struck, let me know with a short comment.

Contact Form

Subscribe To

Navigation

Disclaimer/Privacy

See my "Disclaimer" page for my privacy policy as well as advertising affiliate information. Please note that I use Google Analytics, which tracks user data; you will need to look at their documentation to see what they do about privacy. This website also incorporates links that are part of the Amazon affiliate program (which includes the images of book covers); you will need to consult their websites to see what tracking information they use. This blog contains general discussions of economic and financial market trends for a general audience. These are not investment recommendations tailored to the particular needs of an investor. The author may discuss strategies which are wildly inappropriate for retail investors. Any mention of corporate securities are for illustrative purposes only; the author does not make recommendations to buy or sell such securities (and frankly, has no expertise to do so). No warranties are made with regards to the correctness of data or analysis, and some data may be under copyright protection of the original data provider. Past performance is not a predicton of future performance (which should make some bond bulls fairly nervous).